superpeeve Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

So it would be a boy playing a girl who is also playing a boy.... 

Correct!

Meanwhile, Olivia, who is in reality a boy playing a girl, falls in love with Viola, whom she thinks is a boy, but is actually a girl (played on stage by a boy). And Viola (who is, as we've established, a boy playing a girl pretending to be a boy) has fallen in love with Orsino (a boy playing a boy).

Complicated! With some possible homoerotic elements included into the mix!

When I did this for a pic, I used a male head and skin for Olivia, but dressed her up as a girl (I used a female body), and an androgenous-looking male head and body for Viola. I'm honestly not sure how well it worked. Should Viola, when she is disguised as a boy, retain in her looks something "feminine"? Or would she just be played in a straight-up fashion as boy (which would be easy, because of course in RL she was a boy.)

[Zalificent Corvinus]

28 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Meanwhile, Olivia, who is in reality a boy playing a girl, falls in love with Viola, whom she thinks is a boy, but is actually a girl (played on stage by a boy). And Viola (who is, as we've established, a boy playing a girl pretending to be a boy) has fallen in love with Orsino (a boy playing a boy).

Ah.

English "Restoration Comedy".

[Coffee Pancake]

It's not ag*-play when Shakespeare does it.

Hope governance have heard of him, might be a tough one to appeal otherwise.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

26 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's not ag*-play when Shakespeare does it.

Hope governance have heard of him, might be a tough one to appeal otherwise.

Indeed.

There is a sort of gesture people make about age and sex, where they note that Juliet is only 13 in the play. Which is true. What is interesting, though, is that Juliet's own father thinks she is too young to marry: when he arranges her marriage to Paris, he urges him to wait a few years because she's not old enough for marriage (or sex) yet.

Another bit of interesting context is that our cultural understanding of "childhood" has changed a lot over the centuries. And of course "teenage" is a very modern category.

44 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Ah.

English "Restoration Comedy".

Kind of, but by the Restoration women were allowed on stage. Which meant playwrights could add a new wrinkle: the "britches" part. In the 17th century, women's boobs were pretty much on display, but women's legs and pelvis were not, and the skirts of dresses were designed to obscure their lower halves. So playwrights devised scenes in plays where an actress (who were of course mostly youngish and beautiful) had to be disguised as boys. That meant they'd be dressed in tight-fitting britches, which showed off their curves to good advantage. And yeah, men would go to plays just because they knew they'd have the opportunity to see Nell Gwyn, Anne Bracegirdle (her real name!), or whoever in tight fitting pants.

Sex has always sold well!

Edited May 28 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo (sigh)

[Love Zhaoying]

28 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's not ag*-play when Shakespeare does it.

Hope governance have heard of him, might be a tough one to appeal otherwise.

Peeve: If at least 2 words used in a Governance review, were words coined by (or at least attributed to) Shakespeare!

[Persephone Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Indeed.

There is a sort of gesture people make about age and sex, where they note that Juliet is only 13 in the play. Which is true. What is interesting, though, is that Juliet's own father thinks she is too young to marry: when he arranges her marriage to Paris, he urges him to wait a few years because she's not old enough for marriage (or sex) yet.

Another bit of interesting context is that our cultural understanding of "childhood" has changed a lot over the centuries. And of course "teenage" is a very modern category.

Kind of, but by the Restoration women were allowed on stage. Which meant playwrights could add a new wrinkle: the "britches" part. In the 17th century, women's boobs were pretty much on display, but women's legs and pelvis were not, and the skirts of dresses were designed to obscure their lower halves. So playwrights devised scenes in plays were an actress (who were of course mostly youngish and beautiful) had to be disguised as boys. That meant they'd be dressed in tight-fitting britches, which showed off their curves to good advantage. And yeah, men would go to plays just because they knew they'd have the opportunity to see Nell Gwyn, Anne Bracegirdle (her real name!), or whoever in tight fitting pants.

Sex has always sold well!

In 17th century Venice, some courtesans also occationally wore britches and were scandalized by proper society because of this. 

[Persephone Emerald]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Peeve: If at least 2 words used in a Governance review, were words coined by (or at least attributed to) Shakespeare!

Pretty much any word with an "un" prefex would count, I think.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Indeed.

There is a sort of gesture people make about age and sex, where they note that Juliet is only 13 in the play. Which is true. What is interesting, though, is that Juliet's own father thinks she is too young to marry: when he arranges her marriage to Paris, he urges him to wait a few years because she's not old enough for marriage (or sex) yet.

Another bit of interesting context is that our cultural understanding of "childhood" has changed a lot over the centuries. And of course "teenage" is a very modern category.

Our buddy @brodiac90 would have been old enough to be "betrothed", but not old enough to "marry"!  

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

In 17th century Venice, some courtesans also occationally wore britches and were scandalized by proper society because of this. 

Peeve: Gives new meaning to, "Into the breech"!

("Breeches")

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That meant they'd be dressed in tight-fitting britches, which showed off their curves to good advantage. And yeah, men would go to plays just because they knew they'd have the opportunity to see Nell Gwyn, Anne Bracegirdle (her real name!), or whoever in tight fitting pants.

Peeve: Is it getting hot in here, or is that man..or woman just wearing tight breeches?

[Myriam Brianna]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There is a sort of gesture people make about age and sex, where they note that Juliet is only 13 in the play. Which is true. What is interesting, though, is that Juliet's own father thinks she is too young to marry: when he arranges her marriage to Paris, he urges him to wait a few years because she's not old enough for marriage (or sex) yet.

Which reminds me of a peeve I was reminded of today in another context: The extremely common assumption of universal early marriages in a generic 'olden days', often wielded as a skeevy argument by a certain kind of libertarian. When the historical reality is that there's no universal, and that e.g. English peasant marriages in the late middle ages and onwards were - judging by church records - pretty much a thing between people in their mid-twenties.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Myriam Brianna said:

English peasant marriages in the late middle ages and onwards were - judging by church records - pretty much a thing between people in their mid-twenties.

Peeve: That makes sense; for one reason, in order for a bride to be good for "child-bearing", she has to survive until at least "child-bearing age".

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Our buddy @brodiac90 would have been old enough to be "betrothed", but not old enough to "marry"!  

In general -- and we're talking mostly about those of the middle class and above, because no one much cared what the poor did -- women were betrothed at a much younger age than men. Usually, that's because of property: one wanted to snag a younger woman so that you'd have a good chance of her producing heirs, and because, if she were "off the market," there was a better chance of her not screwing around on you (and potentially producing bastard heirs).

But even "love matches" usually featured disparate ages, and this continued well into the early 20th century. Emma, in Jane Austen's novel, is something like 17 years younger than Mr. Knightly, and even Elizabeth Bennet is 7 or 8 years younger than Darcy.

So Brodiac can relax for a few decades, probably.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Myriam Brianna said:

English peasant marriages in the late middle ages and onwards were - judging by church records - pretty much a thing between people in their mid-twenties.

Very much so, again because there was no property involved.

In a novel from 1740, Samuel Richardson's Pamela, a 16 year old servant girl is locked up by her master, who wants to "seduce" her. She manages to get a letter out appealing for help to the local Justice of the Peace, who shrugs and essentially says "Who cares?" because no "families" (i.e., propertied families) would be hurt if she is seduced / r*ped.

In the poor classes, common law marriages were also quite common for the same reason.

Edited May 28 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo

[brodiac90]

37 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So Brodiac can relax for a few decades, probably.

Good, because right now my 5 year old avatar wants to be a dinosaur when he grows up. Rawr! 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Good, because right now my 5 year old avatar wants to be a dinosaur when he grows up. Rawr! 

Peeve: Just so you know, your uncle the Regent is gonna marry you off to a Princess, or Prince, or something, in about 15 years.

[Myriam Brianna]

16 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

Good, because right now my 5 year old avatar wants to be a dinosaur when he grows up. Rawr! 

Who doesn't dream of being a dinosaur? Even dinosaurs do so, I am sure! 

[Ceka Cianci]

Peeve: It's Tuesday.

 But I guess it's only two days until the weekend, so I'll probably live.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'll probably live.

If you don't, we'll miss you!

Edited May 28 by Love Zhaoying

[AmeliaJ08]

Peeve: the C word. Almost exactly one year since I last got it.

It hurts Getting worried about repeated exposure, I know there's some evidence to suggest it's a very bad thing.

Edited May 28 by AmeliaJ08

[Rowan Amore]

Peeve.  Narcissists 

 

Narcissists cannot tolerate even the slightest suggestion that they may not be right and they will go to great lengths to protect their fragile ego. When you try to suggest that some of their words or actions really hurt you, your feelings will certainly be invalidated.

Other times, emotional invalidation is a form of manipulation and an attempt to make you question your feelings and experiences. A pattern of invalidation is a form of emotional abuse or gaslighting. it’s a denial of you or your experience. It implies that you’re wrong, overreacting, or lying. Abusers do this to turn things around and blame the victim and deny or minimize their abusive words or actions.

The most common forms of invalidation include blaming, judging, denying, and minimizing your feelings or experiences. Invalidation isn’t just disagreeing, it says: I don’t care about your feelings. Your feelings don’t matter. Your feelings are wrong.

[Luna Bliss]

Pet Peeve:  Narcissism and some forms of autism can be confused -- it can be difficult to tell the difference!  But it's important to know this when interacting with someone because the way in which you'd treat them for an optimal outcome would be markedly different.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Pet Peeve:  Narcissism and some forms of autism can be confused -- it can be difficult to tell the difference!  But it's important to know this when interacting with someone because the way in which you'd treat them for an optimal outcome would be markedly different.

Why not just say, sometimes people with autism can exhibit traits similar to NPD? Keep it simple. Just a thought.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Pet Peeve:  Narcissism and some forms of autism can be confused -- it can be difficult to tell the difference!  But it's important to know this when interacting with someone because the way in which you'd treat them for an optimal outcome would be markedly different.

Why not just say, sometimes people with autism can exhibit traits similar to NPD? Keep it simple. Just a thought.

Simple can often be the best way to describe something, yes, but it doesn't address my concern of late -- I'm frequently seeing people confuse the two.

[sirhc DeSantis]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Why not just say, sometimes people with autism can exhibit traits similar to NPD? Keep it simple. Just a thought.

Or may be some of Me do not want to be labelled